Post by Perigo January 7, 2008 (31 of 48)
|
|
Julien said:
You have to understand that the whole audiophile community never accepted SACD
In my opinion absolutely not true!
The only rejection was from old analogists, a very small "niche" part of the the "niche" market of hi-fi...
|
|
|
Post by Perigo January 7, 2008 (32 of 48)
|
|
Ear said:
XRCD's may be able to sound better than a well produced CD. But I pretty sure that they do not sound better than an SACD
In fact, I find XRCD's sound dull and with "no space", in comparision to SACD sound.
|
|
|
Post by soundboy January 8, 2008 (33 of 48)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Did some other format come along (aside from this 'LPCD') that picked up their interest or did they just lose interest in good quality music altogether?
I just noticed the first Mercury Living Presence title has been released on LPCD
|
|
|
Post by Verro18 January 8, 2008 (34 of 48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Claude January 8, 2008 (35 of 48)
|
|
Perigo said:
In fact, I find XRCD's sound dull and with "no space", in comparision to SACD sound.
I find XRCDs have no own sound at all.
They are just well-remastered (most of the time) CDs, and the sound quality depends on who mastered them. Some sound too bright, because the mastering engineer boosted the upper treble. But it's not the technology that's to blame for this.
To make people believe XRCD is a more advanced format than CD is absolutely brilliant marketing.
|
|
|
Post by Julien January 9, 2008 (36 of 48)
|
|
Perigo said:
In my opinion absolutely not true!
The only rejection was from old analogists, a very small "niche" part of the the "niche" market of hi-fi...
Maybe you know your small circle. And the analogists reject SACD a lot less than the CD guys, because they feel that SACD is a lot closer to analogue than CD. What percentage of the audiophiles with killer systems have SACD playback?
I'd say 1%... Definitely less than 5%.
And even your SCD-1 on SACD is not close to the performance of the best CD only players out there. Which is why most people with money and big systems don't care about SACD. Better equipment can often outperform the difference between formats. It would take a Meitner system or better to make these people say "waouh".
It's a pity they don't have high-rez multi-channel though, which is a much bigger step towards the live experience reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
Maybe you know your small circle. And the analogists reject SACD a lot less than the CD guys, because they feel that SACD is a lot closer to analogue than CD. What percentage of the audiophiles with killer systems have SACD playback?
I'd say 1%... Definitely less than 5%.
And even your SCD-1 on SACD is not close to the performance of the best CD only players out there. Which is why most people with money and big systems don't care about SACD. Better equipment can often outperform the difference between formats. It would take a Meitner system or better to make these people say "waouh".
It's a pity they don't have high-rez multi-channel though, which is a much bigger step towards the live experience reproduction.
A Meitner mch system isn't all that expensive compared to the stuff these fools are wasting their money on!
As to whether or not an SCD-1 is a poorer performer than the most expensive CD only players, I find that difficult to swallow.
But not having heard either of those of which you speak or the SCD-1, I shall keep my mouth shut - apart from voicing my skepticism which is due to the fact that you really can't "create" resolution that isn't already there, and due to the fact that there is only so much that can be improved in the analog path before further "improvements" are not significant, that is can not be perceived, except on graph paper.
|
|
|
Post by Julien January 10, 2008 (38 of 48)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
But not having heard either of those of which you speak or the SCD-1, I shall keep my mouth shut - apart from voicing my skepticism which is due to the fact that you really can't "create" resolution that isn't already there
Bruce,
What I mean is that there is far more information on a CD than most stereo fellows here have ever heard from an SACD (talking stereo only here), that's all. That also says how much potential there is in SACD of course... We're back to my old theory that there are not enough top SACD players that can outperform the best CD players. Especially in stero only the universal players just aren't good enough. For example a couple of months ago with a fantastic system, on the same hybrid discs the SACD layer on Bel Canto's top universal PL-1 (I think it costs 8000$) was killed by Bel Canto's own much cheaper CD only transport/DAC combo. By 500 miles. I've had myself those experiences, and heard of a lot more.
In sound reproduction recording quality comes number 1, equipment number 2. Not the format, as soon as we talk CD or better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julien said:
Bruce,
What I mean is that there is far more information on a CD than most stereo fellows here have ever heard from an SACD (talking stereo only here), that's all. That also says how much potential there is in SACD of course... We're back to my old theory that there are not enough top SACD players that can outperform the best CD players. Especially in stereo only the universal players just aren't good enough. For example a couple of months ago with a fantastic system, on the same hybrid discs the SACD layer on Bel Canto's top universal PL-1 (I think it costs 8000$) was killed by Bel Canto's own much cheaper CD only transport/DAC combo. By 500 miles. I've had myself those experiences, and heard of a lot more.
In sound reproduction recording quality comes number 1, equipment number 2. Not the format, as soon as we talk CD or better.
So what you're saying is that "by 500 miles" *you* *prefer* the sound of RBCD to that of SACD because - and there is no question about this - the SACD layer of a hybrid disc will always contain more information (and hence be a better reflection of the recording [of any quality greater than the RBCD specification]) than the RBCD layer, especially as according to your own ranking the [playback] equipment is beaten by "recording quality ... as soon as we talk [RB]CD or better". We must not forget that there are 2 recording qualities to consider: the original source (the same for a hybrid disc) and also the transfer to the carrying medium (of which SACD clearly beats RBCD hands down).
Nothing wrong with your claims per se - you are entitled to feel as you please - but could you be honest enough to recognise what you're actually claiming is the diametric opposite of your own hypothesis?!? Which do you really think is the case? Is the recording quality is most important or the equipment?
|
|
|
Post by Julien January 10, 2008 (40 of 48)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Nothing wrong with your claims per se - you are entitled to feel as you please - but could you be honest enough to recognise what you're actually claiming is the diametric opposite of your own hypothesis?!? Which do you really think is the case? Is the recording quality is most important or the equipment?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant by 1 and 2 is that both 1)recording quality and 2)equipment are more important than the format or medium. Don't forget that I am a hardcore SACD fan. But in a pure stereo discussion, no matter how much information there is on an SACD, it is still about how much the player can extract. There is a lot more to extract from SACD than CD of course, BUT unfortunately there is still much more information (including spatial, harmonics etc, everything we love about SACD) on a well done CD than most stereo SACD fans ever heard from an SACD. I was just explaining why many audiophiles who heard SACD didn't like it, which is in my opinion a hardware quality problem.
I remember having a discussion with Claude about high-rez on portable players. He told me that I would get better sound on well done mp3 files with good earphones, rather than having high-rez files and lesser earphones. He was so right. Of course we also need some form of compression, or condensation, because with 120db range of dynamics your ears don't hear the pianos and explode on the fortes.
|
|
